I've been following a thread that kind of got off topic in another forum, but thought the discussion was interesting enough that it deserves its own thread.

Someone posted a quick thing about how being asian can actually hurt your chances of admission. I have no idea who this person is or how reliable they are.A few posts later, someone else mentioned that this is not, in fact, true. This new person suggested that there is data implying a slight disadvantage when asians apply to undergrad, due to their disproportionately high gpa/sat scores, but thought that this wasn't the case for law school and that there was no disadvantage. This person also mentioned that they thought some schools give a slight boost to asians. Again, I have no idea who this person is or how reliable they are.

But, the idea is interesting. Does anyone have any information on this subject, one way or the other? I'm particularly interested in this as a half white, half asian who could theoretically register as either. I also assume it will be interesting to anyone who is asian and applying.

Are there known boost schools? Known "disadvantage" schools?

Any thoughts on how to maximize asian descent? I assume this doesn't count as "diversity" enough to write about it. Any way to use this to one's advantage, or are asians pretty much treated as every other over represented group?

Some gunners talk about being "men/women of color" and try to co-opt the URM boost for themselves. Usually its pretty bullshit, but you play with the cards you're dealt. Anyone can write a diversity essay discussing their experience that could serve as a soft benefit if it was compelling enough. If you can describe your experience as an asian-american as sufficiently burdensome (rarely is but oh well) or that your particular situation is somehow distinctly diverse, then discuss it; in most cases, don't.

The issue is supply side -- there are an abundance of high achieving/high scoring asian americans to choose from, so they tend to be over-represented relative to other minority groups. High scoring AAs, on the other hand, are more scarce due to american socio-economic divisions, so the supply is significantly lower, which provides te "boost" to fill a diversity quota ("dont say quota!" but thats what it essentially is).

I cant speak to specific schools, but generally it shouldnt make any difference in your app whatsoever.

There are schools that are actively recruiting Asian applicants, but the problem is that most Asian applicants apply to the SAME damn schools.

Yes, if you're Asian, then you're not going to get a boost at Stanford ( and the rest of the Cali schools), or Cornell, or Columbia or Haarvard or Yale or Emory or Seattle or Cordoza or Fordham or NYU or Boston or Washington or SMU or Brooklyn or Lewis & Clark or Richmond or Minnesota or U of Arizona or Suffolk or Ohio State, Seton Hall or UConn or Quinnipiac etc,...

Asians are already the majority "ORM" group at ALL of these schools. If most Asian applicants are going to apply to only schools in Connecticut, New York, Boston, Washington, California, Minnesota, New Jersey, Virginia, or schools where they already have a strong presence, then maybe there won't be such a strong need to boost the number of Asian students at these schools. However, It would make no sense to assume that schools are deliberately trying to lower the number of Asian students at these schools- which is the assumption made when people say identifying themselves as Asian is going to hurt their chances of admission at a school where Asians are already populous.

Last edited by jas1503 on Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Don't worry too much about it. You can always just not disclose your race if you're too worried. The only benefit to checking the Asian box is getting emails about APALSA before you're even admitted (or SALSA).

asian0L wrote:But, the idea is interesting. Does anyone have any information on this subject, one way or the other? I'm particularly interested in this as a half white, half asian who could theoretically register as either. I also assume it will be interesting to anyone who is asian and applying.

Are there known boost schools? Known "disadvantage" schools?

Any thoughts on how to maximize asian descent? I assume this doesn't count as "diversity" enough to write about it. Any way to use this to one's advantage, or are asians pretty much treated as every other over represented group?

thank you all for comments and thoughts

I don't think there is going to be any boosts in the admissions process, I think it is a numbers game as stated from others. Asians are about 5% of the US population but make up 10% of the LS applicant pool. That's primarily the reason why there is no boost.

I think you are better off emphasizing your multi-racial descent. EEO/AA forms now include the category "two or more races" and this group is the largest growing. I imagine there are some difficulties in having multiple racial backgrounds, most of my friends who are half white and half Asian tend to only identify one or the other.

If you try to only emphasize your Asian background, your situation most likely won't match up to others. There are refugees and second generation Americans whose parents don't speak English. In addition there are some ethnic groups included in the Asian category that are extremely under represented but are not recognized as such (ex: Hmong, Mien, etc.)

Anyway I don't think it makes a significance either way, but if you are in a flat footed tie with someone, your diversity statement could be the tiebreaker.

jas1503 wrote:ETA: Actually, they are not really over-represented at any of these schools imo. Asians don't really make up 30% (or more) at any, single law school.

classic logical flaw -- the fact that asians don't make up more than 30% of a law school population doesn't preclude them from being over-represented relative to other minority groups and in proportion to their % in the general population, as referenced here:

sam62188 wrote:Asians are about 5% of the US population but make up 10% of the LS applicant pool. That's primarily the reason why there is no boost.

jas1503 wrote:ETA: Actually, they are not really over-represented at any of these schools imo. Asians don't really make up 30% (or more) at any, single law school.

classic logical flaw -- the fact that asians don't make up more than 30% of a law school population doesn't preclude them from being over-represented relative to other minority groups and in proportion to their % in the general population

Explain how they are over-represented?

Asians are well represented at some law schools, but they're not over-represented at any school.

Asians are about 16 million of the US population, about 10,000 of their 16 million are enrolled in law school.In total, there are a couple hundred fewer Asians in law school than Blacks or Hispanics. Yes, there are more African Americans and Hispanics in the US, but that doesn't change the fact that all 3 minority groups have about the same total number of students attending law school.

Using the percentage of the Asian population doesn't change the total number of Asians in law school. There's no one over-represented minority group in law school.

Asians are well represented at some law schools, but they're not over-represented at any school.

Asians are about 16 million of the US population, about 10,000 of their 16 million are enrolled in law school.In total, there are a couple hundred fewer Asians in law school than Blacks or Hispanics. Yes, there are more African Americans and Hispanics in the US, but that doesn't change the fact that all 3 minority groups have about the same total number of students attending law school.

Using the percentage of the Asian population doesn't change the total number of Asians in law school. There's no one over-represented minority group in law school.

wat

Asians are overrepresented in law school in relation to their percentage of the overall American population. In a perfect world, the US population demographics would be the same as law school demographics (e.g. if the US was 50% white, 10% black, 10% Asian, 30% Hispanic then law schools would be 50% white, 10% black, 10% Asian, 30% Hispanic ). But that's not the world we live in. The question then is whether a minority is overrepresented (law school percentage > US population percentage) or underrepresented (law school percentage < US pop percentage). By that definition, Asians are overrepresented because they are 6% of the US population yet make up almost 7% of the law school population.

Asians are well represented at some law schools, but they're not over-represented at any school.

Asians are about 16 million of the US population, about 10,000 of their 16 million are enrolled in law school.In total, there are a couple hundred fewer Asians in law school than Blacks or Hispanics. Yes, there are more African Americans and Hispanics in the US, but that doesn't change the fact that all 3 minority groups have about the same total number of students attending law school.

Using the percentage of the Asian population doesn't change the total number of Asians in law school. There's no one over-represented minority group in law school.

wat

Asians are overrepresented in law school in relation to their percentage of the overall American population. In a perfect world, the US population demographics would be the same as law school demographics (e.g. if the US was 50% white, 10% black, 10% Asian, 30% Hispanic then law schools would be 50% white, 10% black, 10% Asian, 30% Hispanic ). But that's not the world we live in. The question then is whether a minority is overrepresented (law school percentage > US population percentage) or underrepresented (law school percentage < US pop percentage). By that definition, Asians are overrepresented because they are 6% of the US population yet make up almost 30% of the law school population. Even if Asians aren't 30% at any school (statistically they have to average out to 30% at every school but I can see how average percentages can create illusory results), they are almost assuredly above 6% at most schools.

By that definition, yes. Your idea of over-representation is different from mine.

I was never talking about percentages. I'm only talking about the total amount of a group of people in law school. All this stuff about % relation to US population is meh.

ETA: Where did you get 30 percent of the law school population from?

Last edited by jas1503 on Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This is pretty much along the lines of what I thought would come of this thread... but I'm still glad to hear that it's not any kind of DISadvantage.

It's funny, whoever mentioned this, you're the second person to suggest that all asians apply to the same schools. I had never noticed this, but I'm going to look at the numbers! I wonder why this would be...

If it helps, without knowing how most people define "over" or "under" represented in terms of law school, I was thinking about it solely in terms of how it's related to the population. This is also how I interpreted the data and the "official" law school(s) stance on URMs.

I see BOTH SIDES of the argument, and I see how someone could use "overrepresented" to mean something more along the lines of "holding the majority percentage at a school". But my interpretation of 99% of the usage of this term in regards to law schools is how a demographic stacks up against their prevalence in the general population.

jas1503 wrote:By that definition, yes. Your idea of over-representation is different from mine.

I was never talking about percentages. I'm only talking about the total amount of a group of people in law school. All this stuff about % relation to US population is meh.

"His" idea of overrepresentation is how everyone defines the term. How on earth does it make any sense whatsoever to compare the numbers of given groups in all law schools without reference to their proportions in the general population?

jas1503 wrote:By that definition, yes. Your idea of over-representation is different from mine.

I was never talking about percentages. I'm only talking about the total amount of a group of people in law school. All this stuff about % relation to US population is meh.

"His" idea of overrepresentation is how everyone defines the term. How on earth does it make any sense whatsoever to compare the numbers of given groups in all law schools without reference to their proportions in the general population?

No, on the contrary, it's the only thing that matters. Which is why everyone but you understands the meanings of overrepresentation and underrepresentation in exactly these terms.

How would it make any sense whatsoever to say that African-Americans (12.6% of the US population) are "underrepresented" in law schools until such time as they represent a majority or a plurality of all law school students? That's asinine. The point of affirmative action admissions policies (not at all arguing whether anything about AA is a good or bad idea here) is to produce a student body that is reflective of the nation's racial and ethnic makeup. These AA goals are achieved when African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, etc., are represented in schools in equal proportion to their representation in the nation's overall population. Appearing in fewer numbers than some other group does not in itself amount to "underrepresentation."

According to your logic, Pacific Islander Americans, some 1.2 million in total (just 0.4% of the population), would somehow be "underrepresented" in American law schools until they were either the majority or plurality group. (If that's the measure of "underrepresentation," then the word has no useful meaning -- which is why the term is not used as you use it.) If law schools were 30% Pacific Islander American and 35% white, your reasoning compels you to argue that the former are somehow "underrepresented," even though they would be appearing in law schools at 75 times their concentration in the general population. This ridiculous reasoning would also compel you to argue that South African whites (9.6% of the South African population) are "underrepresented" at Wits University in Johannesburg, South Africa because they are only 27.8% of the student body, while South African blacks (79.4% of the national population) are "overrepresented" because they make up 53.9% of the student body. Only when white South Africans -- less than one-tenth of the national population -- are the largest racial/ethnic group in the Wits University student body will they cease to be underrepresented, per your bizarre understanding of the term.

Off topic response: LOL at the argument of URM or ORM. This is the 21st century people. You cannot contain race in a box. More people today classify themselves as "mixed" races then at any other point in American history. So clearly AA are underrepresented. So are specific Asian groups. So are mixed Asian-African Americans, Asian-White, Hispanic-Asian and so on. There will never be perfect representation of any group. But if a private school wants to give a boost to some racial label then that is its right (maybe...).

Ti Malice wrote:No, on the contrary, it's the only thing that matters. Which is why everyone but you understands the meanings of overrepresentation and underrepresentation in exactly these terms.

How would it make any sense whatsoever to say that African-Americans (12.6% of the US population) are "underrepresented" in law schools until such time as they represent a majority or a plurality of all law school students? That's asinine. The point of affirmative action admissions policies (not at all arguing whether anything about AA is a good or bad idea here) is to produce a student body that is reflective of the nation's racial and ethnic makeup. These AA goals are achieved when African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, etc., are represented in schools in equal proportion to their representation in the nation's overall population. Appearing in fewer numbers than some other group does not in itself amount to "underrepresentation."

According to your logic, Pacific Islander Americans, some 1.2 million in total (just 0.4% of the population), would somehow be "underrepresented" in American law schools until they were either the majority or plurality group. (If that's the measure of "underrepresentation," then the word has no useful meaning -- which is why the term is not used as you use it.) If law schools were 30% Pacific Islander American and 35% white, your reasoning compels you to argue that the former are somehow "underrepresented," even though they would be appearing in law schools at 75 times their concentration in the general population. This ridiculous reasoning would also compel you to argue that South African whites (9.6% of the South African population) are "underrepresented" at Wits University in Johannesburg, South Africa because they are only 27.8% of the student body, while South African blacks (79.4% of the national population) are "overrepresented" because they make up 53.9% of the student body. Only when white South Africans -- less than one-tenth of the national population -- are the largest racial/ethnic group in the Wits University student body will they cease to be underrepresented, per your bizarre understanding of the term.

Ti Malice wrote:No, on the contrary, it's the only thing that matters. Which is why everyone but you understands the meanings of overrepresentation and underrepresentation in exactly these terms.

How would it make any sense whatsoever to say that African-Americans (12.6% of the US population) are "underrepresented" in law schools until such time as they represent a majority or a plurality of all law school students? That's asinine. The point of affirmative action admissions policies (not at all arguing whether anything about AA is a good or bad idea here) is to produce a student body that is reflective of the nation's racial and ethnic makeup. These AA goals are achieved when African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, etc., are represented in schools in equal proportion to their representation in the nation's overall population. Appearing in fewer numbers than some other group does not in itself amount to "underrepresentation."

According to your logic, Pacific Islander Americans, some 1.2 million in total (just 0.4% of the population), would somehow be "underrepresented" in American law schools until they were either the majority or plurality group. (If that's the measure of "underrepresentation," then the word has no useful meaning -- which is why the term is not used as you use it.) If law schools were 30% Pacific Islander American and 35% white, your reasoning compels you to argue that the former are somehow "underrepresented," even though they would be appearing in law schools at 75 times their concentration in the general population. This ridiculous reasoning would also compel you to argue that South African whites (9.6% of the South African population) are "underrepresented" at Wits University in Johannesburg, South Africa because they are only 27.8% of the student body, while South African blacks (79.4% of the national population) are "overrepresented" because they make up 53.9% of the student body. Only when white South Africans -- less than one-tenth of the national population -- are the largest racial/ethnic group in the Wits University student body will they cease to be underrepresented, per your bizarre understanding of the term.

Oh!So sorry guys. After reading some of the comments I am getting the feeling that the question y'all were getting was what I should identify as (not trying to single you out andy2012--you just happened to be the most recent post there were others!)

Sorry if I implied that. While it would be helpful information, I'm mostly trying to open a discussion about applying as an asian in all regards. I definitely had me-specific questions (i.e. about being half asian) that I wouldn't be upset if they were answered, but I was hoping that ultimately this could be a resource for all asians.

Replies targeting my personal situation didn't misinterpret, but since that's mostly what's happening I'm realizing that I must have phrased it as if that was my main concern.

But, thanks for all the replies so for from everyone! Keep 'em coming! even those that are off-topic... Call me sadistic, but I'm enjoying the discussion

Ti Malice wrote:No, on the contrary, it's the only thing that matters. Which is why everyone but you understands the meanings of overrepresentation and underrepresentation in exactly these terms.

How would it make any sense whatsoever to say that African-Americans (12.6% of the US population) are "underrepresented" in law schools until such time as they represent a majority or a plurality of all law school students? That's asinine. The point of affirmative action admissions policies (not at all arguing whether anything about AA is a good or bad idea here) is to produce a student body that is reflective of the nation's racial and ethnic makeup. These AA goals are achieved when African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, etc., are represented in schools in equal proportion to their representation in the nation's overall population. Appearing in fewer numbers than some other group does not in itself amount to "underrepresentation."

According to your logic, Pacific Islander Americans, some 1.2 million in total (just 0.4% of the population), would somehow be "underrepresented" in American law schools until they were either the majority or plurality group. (If that's the measure of "underrepresentation," then the word has no useful meaning -- which is why the term is not used as you use it.) If law schools were 30% Pacific Islander American and 35% white, your reasoning compels you to argue that the former are somehow "underrepresented," even though they would be appearing in law schools at 75 times their concentration in the general population. This ridiculous reasoning would also compel you to argue that South African whites (9.6% of the South African population) are "underrepresented" at Wits University in Johannesburg, South Africa because they are only 27.8% of the student body, while South African blacks (79.4% of the national population) are "overrepresented" because they make up 53.9% of the student body. Only when white South Africans -- less than one-tenth of the national population -- are the largest racial/ethnic group in the Wits University student body will they cease to be underrepresented, per your bizarre understanding of the term.

This^

...I'm not even going to read.

You're basically just a fool, and worse, kind of a dick

Yeah, a five-second glance at his posting history makes it clear that thinking is rather painful for this one.